On 26/03/13 15:46, Jethro_uk wrote:
.. 10,000 years ago you could walk from Spain to
Scotland - and we know people did. Try that now.

I reckon that's going to happen if this euro******** goes on much longer.

they will have to walk,. we wont be able to afford to drive em.



Even the experts admit climate change is truly chaotic. Which means you
can't factor in or out anything mankind does.

Incidentally, there is NOTHING wrong with wanting to live in a more
sustainable way. It's something we should be putting all our effort into.
Not because of climate change though. Just because it's more sensible in
the long run.


But not at any cost.

One day, someone will write a book, or make a film. It will start with
the idealism and hope after the second world war. It will chart how well
meaning, sincere folk started to realise that we can't just rape the
planet and not pay. These evolved into the counterculture of the 60s,
which were derided, mocked and ridiculed by mainstream society.

Then, somewhere between the 60s, and the 90s, a sort of critical mass was
reached - maybe the 1984/5 Band-Aid/Live-Aid phenomenon ? Either way,
somehow, people in suits with wire-rimmed glasses and red braces had an
epiphany. They realised you could actually SELL being green. You could
slap the word "organic" on a food and double the price. So they did.

What was brilliant about this, was that it was the environmentalists that
were effectively paying for the marketing. Every Greenpeace ad about the
environment would see a jump in sales of "Eco" this, and "Green" that.

And our lords and masters looked upon this, and they saw it was good.

And thus it came to pass that the 1980s misbred young executives that
were heavily advertised became the advisers and policy consultants of the
90s.

And lo verily, did the notion of "Green taxes" be dreamt up. For they did
see, that whilst Joe Public might be narked about an extra penny on
income tax, the same Joe Public would queue up to "save the planet".

I'm sorry, but personally I think the worlds public have been hoodwinked
on a massive scale. "Green energy" is a good example. It's doing **** all
for the planet (in fact it's a net carbon contributor) but it's doing
wonders for the firms that build the kit, and wonders for the upper-
middle classes who actually get paid up to 40p/unit for the electricity
that they put into the grid which is charged at 10p/unit.

Everyday I see many small things that could save a shed load of energy.
Very simple things. But guess what ? There's no money in it for anyone,
so it's ignored. Which leads me to my view of life. "If it *really*
mattered ..."

If reducing emissions *really* mattered, you'd have a planning and tax
system which encouraged work from home, and staggered working hours. That
would cost very little, but - guess what ? No money in it. In fact you'll
find behind the scenes the road and rail lobby would HATE any idea like
that. So it's left alone.

When the government *acts* like it matters, then I will.

What I find particularly depressing, is people who are a victim of bad
science in one area, appear to be willing to fall for it in another.

I manage to avoid long debates on climate change now, by just saying:
"Define climate. Define change".

FWIW I have a more Gaian view of things. We live in a symbiosis with
everything on earth, including the Earth. And just like a body with an
infection, if we start to make the Earth poorly, then it's immune system
will start to kick in to eradicate us. Or, alternatively, like a cell
about to divide, we somehow manage to become 2 cells. But that requires
interplanetary travel on a scale way beyond out capabilities. Especially
if our offspring are more content to watch Celebrity Big Brother rather
than design a better mousetrap.

Here endeth the rant for today


not much to disagree with.

Especially about the establishment looking at the radical movements of
the 60's not with fear, but with profit in mind. I lived it and I saw it
happening.

Not that I was politically active then, but those that were..got
hoodwinked royally.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.